Panel upholds firing of police officer Manney in Hamilton case

Commissioners decide he violated rules during encounter that led to death

Maria Hamilton (center) hugs a supporter Monday night after a panel of three Milwaukee Fire and Police Commission members upheld the firing of officer Christopher Manney. Manney, who was fired after the fatal on-duty shooting of Hamilton’s son Dontre, maintained that he did nothing wrong. Credit: Mark Hoffman

A panel of three Milwaukee Fire and Police Commission members unanimously upheld the firing of Christopher Manney, finding Monday night that he violated Milwaukee Police Department rules during his encounter with Dontre Hamilton.

Manney was fired after the fatal on-duty shooting of Hamilton, 31, at Red Arrow Park on April 30.

The panel's decision brought tears to the eyes of Nate Hamilton, Dontre's brother.

"Dontre has no voice no more, but today he spoke. Dontre spoke. He continues to speak through us, through the community, through change," Hamilton said.

"The police officers, we're not saying that all of them are bad, but you have to remove those that are," Hamilton said as he stood with his mother, Maria Hamilton, and brother Dameion Perkins.

"You have to hold those accountable that aren't doing and following the procedures of the Milwaukee Police Department," he continued.

Manney should not get his job back, Nate Hamilton said.

Attorney Mark Thomsen, who was hired by the city to represent Police Chief Edward Flynn's decision, said the appeal process showed the department conducted a fair, thorough internal investigation and provides consistent training designed to prohibit "profiling pat-downs."

"But it's not a happy night," Thomsen said. "Mr. Hamilton isn't here, and it's a night to think about who we are as a city and where we're going."

Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett expressed a similar sentiment as he reiterated his support for Flynn's decision and that of the commission.

"What was most important then, and still is today, is to find a way for our city to heal and move forward," Barrett said in a statement. "The tragic death of Dontre Hamilton has shaken our community and we have much work to do."

Two phases

The commissioners unanimously sustained, or confirmed, the findings of an internal investigation that concluded Manney conducted an "out-of-policy pat-down" and did not articulate a reasonable suspicion for the frisk.

Manney's response to the disciplinary charge, in which he described what led him to believe Hamilton was dangerous, resulted in a second disciplinary charge for not following Defense and Arrest Tactics. The panel sustained that charge, as well.

Before making a decision on the second phase, which centered on Manney's discipline, commissioners heard from Flynn about why he chose to fire Manney.

Flynn told the panel the degree of harm was an important consideration because Manney's "blunders" resulted in the loss of life.

The chief said he felt he had no choice but to fire Manney.

"What is a role that officer could play in the Police Department in which I could take safely the risk the employee would never be this incompetent again, having been incompetent enough to make decisions that resulted in this tragic outcome?" Flynn said.

Commissioners also heard from Manney himself and three of Manney's past supervisors, who described him as a hard worker and said they would have no concerns if he returned to the force.

Manney and his attorneys detailed the former officer's record of commendations at MPD and in the Army National Guard. His attorney, Jonathan Cermele, said it was possible to hold Manney accountable for his actions without firing him. Police officials found jobs for Manney while he was on administrative duty from the time of the shooting until his termination.

Manney told commissioners he understood they found he broke the rules, but said: "I ask that you do not terminate me."

Panel members deliberated for less than an hour before announcing their decision about 10 p.m. Monday. They will release a written explanation of their findings at a later date.

Closing arguments

During closing arguments in the first phase that centered on rule violations, Cermele said the former officer did articulate a reasonable suspicion for the pat-down.

He also criticized internal affairs investigators for not giving Manney what he described as possibly exculpatory evidence at the appropriate time — an argument he made earlier during the proceedings.

Cermele said that if commissioners uphold the firing, it would send "the wrong message" to the department's rank-and-file to back off, wait and call for backup — even in situations where officers know they could handle it — because of a fear of getting "Manney'ed."

That hesitancy could hurt community members who need help, he added.

Thomsen, however, contended sustaining the disciplinary charges would send the "right message."

"Those officers that follow that training, they're doing the right thing," Thomsen said.

It also sends the message to the community that "this department will not tolerate bad pat-downs and profiling," he added.

The case is highly important for community relations, for trust in officers to follow policies to keep them and citizens safe, and because of the "degree of harm" suffered by Hamilton, Thomsen said.

"To say that you can just violate policy like that and someone isn't here and it's OK? It's not," he said.

Defense witnesses

Earlier Monday, a retired Milwaukee police lieutenant testified Manney's pat-down was "reasonably objective" and "something anyone would have done in that situation."

Steve Spingola, who retired in 2005 and now teaches policing, was called as an expert witness by Cermele.

Spingola said he reviewed numerous reports related to case and in his opinion Manney saw a bulge, which turned out to be a cellphone charger, and any officer would reasonably say "it would be reckless not to perform a simple pat-down."

Thomsen pointed out Spingola had retired before the policies for which Manney was fired were in place.

Thomsen also noted Spingola was the subject of an Internal Affairs investigation for living outside the city, in violation of residency rules at the time, which forced his retirement. Spingola said he already was planning to retire at that time.

Manney's defense then called Robert C. Willis, who is considered an expert in Defense and Arrest Tactics.

"I believe the pat-down was lawful and there were many, many reasons the pat-down was lawful and as I said earlier, I'm not even sure the pat-down even commenced," Willis testified.